User talk:Eric Norby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi. I like what you said about, "They develop predictions from the data, and they test those predictions for consistency." The scientific method article does need substantial rewrite.
I'm interested in the difference between saying, "most or nearly all scientists believe" and "here's how the scientific method was applied". --Uncle Ed 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Uncle Ed, good to hear from you. I seem to write and no one seems to appreciate it. I think your letter here is one of the nicest I've received, and I've received some good ones. Thanks.
What I write here, I assemble for the first time.
I think belief is a lethargic process of all memory. In other words when our minds get lazy we shortcut the process and believe. It is a side taking. Science however IMHO, is the lack of side taking.
You are correct in stating "here's how the scientific method was applied". Science, IMHO is knowledge. Knowledge IMHO is truth. If it is not true it is not really known.
So what are scientists? Humans! Humans are pretty good at failing to do thing consistently. We are capable of being very consistent for short periods until we get tired. We almost are never perfect, well at least perfect as defined by what we want the outcome of our actions to be. Scientist as people can believe anything they want, however, IMHO it quite likely will eventually hurt their objectivity.
So what is "scientific method"? That is the most difficult thing to define as it has a very wide set of tools. The goal of the scientific method is to record information that is consistent/repeatable/reliable. The scientific method is derived to search for the truth without worrying about what "truth" is. The method recognizes human memory, and recording devices, such as pen and paper. Through the use of memory, since we must, and pen and paper because it seems more consistent/repeatable/reliable we study nature, mind, and logic.
The first thing a scientist learns is his memory seems way more unreliable that a document. This could be because they are changed in his mind or the document. He then brings other people's memories in, some agree with some of his memory, but not all of it, and some agree with the document but not all of it. After many people and books have been compared the book comes out ahead. That is called repeatability. The book is found to be more repeatable than the human mind.
Again to take a look at scientific method again we now look at what people claiming to be scientist are doing. All of them are recording things in books, pictures, tape records, video records, etc. All of them are demonstrating those things to other scientists (Peer review). We use peer review to establish repeatability in all walks of science. If it can't be reviewed by a peer the peers don't place much weight on it.
Any way, back to what methods scientist use. They use tools, many many tools. They use mental tools, logic, reason, comparison, curiosity, imagination etc... They use observational tools. They use measurement tools, mathematics, set theory, calculations, etc.... They use recording tools. The use cataloging tools, sorting tools, and comparison tools. They use experiment. They build tools. They build models. They use whatever they can, just to see the results. They use curiosity.
To me science is any part or combination of the above methods so long as they record some/all (The more the better.) aspects of it. Science/knowledge can be the building of the tools use to study any area of science, including the science of tool development.
One thing the science pager lacks is the idea that science isn't 'a' rigid method. It is many methods and combinations of them. Not all science is experimental. Science isn't strictly empiricism, nor any one other "ism".
I think the reason it was called "science" in the fist place is it was hard to argue that it wasn't the "truth" when you could take all people and show them. This included mathematics, logic, and empiricism.
A scientist should never say "I believe it", instead say "it appears repeatable". Science is about "Do the experiment yourself". Equally, "Do the mathematics yourself", or logic, or etc...
The reason for my opinion on that revolves around the experiment of belief. Belief something one way do the experiment, then run the exact same experiment believing the other way. Do it many times. Do it many times with many different experiment. See if believing changes the outcome. I haven't observed that condition of belief changes the outcome of any scientifically valid experiment. If it appears to change an experiment, it may not be scientifically valid or potentially you have discovered a new principal of science where "belief does matter". See if belief changes the outcome of dropping a hammer and observing it fall. In other words, do the "belief" experiment yourself.
I hope that helps for the science definition and for you question regarding belief. It appears not to change an experiment. Remember, it might not be "truth", it may be such that some pink invisible unicorns are making sure belief doesn't effect your experiment, but we are looking for methods that increased repeatability, which may or may not be the "truth".
Scientist should attempt to avoid all belief, but it appears to make no difference in experimental outcome.
Eric Norby 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
